The case involves Brazilian football player Deyvid Franck Silva Sacconi appealing a decision by FIFA regarding an employment dispute with Azerbaijani club FK Khazar Lankaran. The dispute arose when the club failed to pay the player USD 19,483 as agreed in a termination contract. The player filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in his favor, ordering the club to pay the amount plus interest. When the club did not comply, the player sought enforcement through FIFA's Disciplinary Committee. However, FIFA later informed the player that the club was no longer affiliated with the Azerbaijani Football Federation (AFFA) and thus fell outside FIFA's jurisdiction, as FIFA only has authority over affiliated clubs.
The legal issues centered on whether FIFA's communication constituted an appealable decision under Article 58 of the FIFA Statutes, which allows appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of notification. The CAS panel determined that a decision need not be formal but must affect the legal situation of the addressee. It noted that FIFA's initial communication could have misled the player into believing it was not appealable, and thus the later formal refusal was the valid decision for appeal purposes. The panel upheld FIFA's stance that it lacks jurisdiction over disputes involving disaffiliated clubs, as FIFA's authority extends only to clubs affiliated with member associations.
The player argued that FIFA's refusal to act constituted a formal decision, while FIFA maintained it was merely administrative correspondence. The CAS panel concluded that the letter, despite its informal nature, effectively closed the matter and had legal consequences for the player, making it appealable. The panel also found that the player had no further recourse within FIFA, reinforcing the appeal's admissibility. However, it ultimately sided with FIFA on the jurisdictional issue, ruling that FIFA correctly declined to act due to the club's disaffiliation.
The case underscores the procedural complexities when clubs lose affiliation and the jurisdictional limits of FIFA's enforcement mechanisms. It clarifies that communications from FIFA can be considered appealable decisions if they unilaterally affect a party's legal rights, even if not formally labeled as such. The panel dismissed the player's appeal, affirming FIFA's position that only affiliated clubs fall under its regulatory scope. The ruling highlights the importance of formal affiliation in sports governance and the challenges players face when seeking redress against disaffiliated entities. The case serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving jurisdictional boundaries and the enforceability of decisions in international sports arbitration.